Aryan95614/aerograph-asrs huggingface dataset:
Aircraft: PC-12
Phase of flight: Descent
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy

I was working several aircraft inbound to ORD; including one routed from the north over the SHIKY arrival (a CRJ7) that needed to be sequenced with the aircraft inbound from the west. There was a fair amount of other traffic in the airspace at the time; several aircraft on frequency need to descend through the arrival traffic to destination airports in the vicinity. Also at the same time; parachute jumping was going on over the Beloit airport; [the jump plane] was circling up to 14;500 FT directly underneath the ORD arrival stream. A PC-12; an RYV arrival from the south; requested lower; I issued 14;000; attempting to keep that aircraft underneath the ORD arrivals. I thought The PC-12 would be laterally separated from the CRJ7; however; I must have misjudged the distance and standard separation was lost. The CRJ7 reported responding to an RA. I do not know if the RA was with [the jump plane] or the PC-12. I believe the parachute jump operation at the Beloit; WI airport is a safety risk at FARMM Sector. The jump aircraft are constantly in conflict with IFR traffic; particularly ORD arrivals; as the BULLZ and JVL STARs route arrivals right through the airspace the jump aircraft circle. Constantly issuing traffic advisories about the jump aircraft to IFR traffic during a rush distracts from other tasks at hand and adds significantly to what can be an already heavy workload. During the time period in question; I spent a fair amount of time/effort on the jump aircraft; attempting to plan for their climb; issuing traffic; etc. Without such a large distraction in play; it would've been significantly easier to realize and correct the error I made in regards to misjudging how much separation I had between the CRJ7 and the PC-12. ZAU Controller experienced a loss of separation event listing parachute activity in the vicinity as work intensive and distracting from duties required of ORD arrivals.
Aircraft: LARGE TRANSPORT; LOW WING; 2 TURBOJET ENG
Phase of flight: Descent
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy

In the descent at Toman intersection; we received a TA (traffic advisory). Our clearance was to cross 45 nautical miles prior to Hosba intersection at FL140. Airspeed was 290 Kts; with the speed brakes fully deployed to meet the restriction. Shortly after that we received an RA (resolution alert); which started as basically flying level flight to a 2000 fpm climb; followed by a 2000 fpm descent. We advised Singapore ATC of the TA and the RA. We also advised ATC that we were following the TCAS RA instructions and that we were unable to comply with the ATC altitude clearance. Visual contact was established with an Indonesian fighter; just off to the right of our aircraft; at the same altitude and close enough to see the pilot clearly. We had been intercepted by at least 2 Indonesian fighters (at least one behind us also). The fighter that we had visual contact with; appeared to be an SU-27. We established radio contact on 121.5 with the fighter. He advised us that we did not have permission to fly in Indonesian airspace. I told him that we were operating on a filed flight plan; with diplomatic clearance to fly in Indonesian airspace. He kept repeating that we did not have permission. I replied that we did and repeated what I said before. I think my exact words at that point were; back off; we are proceeding to Singapore. Shortly after that the fighters left and we proceeded to Singapore and landed. We need to find out what is going on with Indonesia. We heard another N registered US military flight get intercepted with a very similar dialogue that took place. That flight was going from WSAP to the Philippines. I spoke with Singapore ATC on the telephone. They said there is a big increase in unidentified traffic; which I'm assuming is Indonesian fighter traffic. We were on our flight plan and did have a current Indonesian over-fly number. Air carrier pilot descending into WASP reported a TCAS RA caused by two Indonesian fighter aircraft that ordered the flight to leave Indonesian Airspace. The reporter stated that he is on a filed flight plan; has an Indonesian overfly number; and is proceeding to WASP. The fighters broke away.
Aircraft: B737
Phase of flight: Descent
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter

I was Pilot Flying on flight to HOU. We were cleared to descend via the KIDDZ 3 Arrival; landing Runway 31. I believe around the KIDDZ intersection; we started to encounter mild wake turbulence from Company aircraft approximately 10 miles in front of us. I went into the FMC and programmed a .1L offset to stay out of his wake. I did not enter a start or end waypoint for the offset. Sometime later; we received a message stating end of offset. At GLUVR intersection; we received a route discontinuity and the aircraft went into the roll mode I believe. My First Officer immediately re-entered the arrival with the next intersection; CRSTY. By that time; ATC gave us a 090 heading and mentioned that we were just south of the course. We informed him we were turning back and we were given direct to VILLI intersection and resume the arrival. Rest of flight proceeded normally.I failed to enter an end of offset waypoint which led to the aircraft deviating from the assigned route. I've used the offset function many times in the past and honestly don't remember having this ever happening. My First Officer was fairly new and had never used the offset function; so he was relying on my entries to be accurate; which they were not. I'll be sure to take my time and understand what I am selecting and executing the next time when making entries into the FMC. B737-700 Captain reported a track deviation occurred during a route offset to avoid wake turbulence.
Aircraft: COMMERCIAL FIXED WING
Phase of flight: Climb
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT

Aircraft was instructed to climb because they were not comfortable accepting a visual approach. After giving a vector to take them out towards final; the rate of climb was slower than expected and the aircraft entered a higher MVA at a lower altitude. Was thinking of a rule that applied to departures. BTV TRACON Controller reported issuing a climb to an aircraft; the aircraft didn't climb as well as the Controller thought it would and ended up in a lower MVA.
Aircraft: B737
Phase of flight: Descent
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy

While on the KORRY 4 Arrival into LGA; the aircraft crossed 1000' high (at 11;000' MSL) passing KORRY (published altitude is 10;000' MSL). This was due to an un-executable clearance change given by ATC to cross BRAND (fix 5.3 NM prior to KORRY) at 250 knots. The Crew attempted to comply; but this was an un-executable clearance change due to speed; altitude; and distance limitations. Prior to being given said speed restriction at BRAND; the aircraft was established on the proper vertical path while complying with the previous ATC directed speed of 300+ knots (aircraft was established at 310 knots). The new clearance/speed restriction for BRAND was given approximately 10 miles prior to BRAND. Immediately after updating the FMC with the new speed and beginning execution to comply; the Crew recognized the aircraft going well above the required vertical path to cross BRAND at 250 knots; then cross KORRY at the required 10;000' MSL. The Pilot Flying made every reasonable attempt to slow the aircraft to meet the 250 knots restriction at BRAND and then cross KORRY at the published altitude. Due to ATC radio congestion; the Pilot Monitoring was unable to request for relief to either restriction. ATC needs to give clearance changes such as these well prior to the applicable fix and consider including relief to subsequent altitude restrictions is clearances are given late. Pilot reported receiving clearance too late to comply with the speed and altitude restrictions given and unable to request relief because of radio congestion.
Aircraft: MD-82
Phase of flight: Initial Approach
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance

After go around for anti skid failure caution an emergency was declared. On an intercept but not yet cleared for approach ATC had kept us high to go over traffic. I selected ILS with autopilot engaged. We were cleared to descend to 4;000 however glideslope captured and descended to 3;550. Both pilots were looking for the traffic that ATC was calling. We then noticed altitude deviation and ATC called at the same time. We were then simultaneously cleared for the approach. While on radar vectors for a visual approach the ILS mode was selected prior to approach clearance. The aircraft captured the glide slope and deviated from the clearance altitude. Pilot flying and pilot not flying were both looking outside for traffic called by ATC and missed the altitude change until the aircraft had deviated as much as 400 FT.I will make a better effort to monitor mode control panel selections when acting as pilot not flying. When acting as pilot flying I will verbalize my MCP selections to the pilot not flying; at least during high workload situations; to facilitate his/her monitoring duties. An MD80 flight crew; during an approach following a go around for an antiskid failure caution; armed the ILS for approach before receiving clearance. An altitude excursion was the result.
Aircraft: SR20
Phase of flight: Climb
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT

We departed on the Canoga 2 departure from VNY; and were on the initial climb on heading 213. At this time; typically we are vectored toward the west on course away from the higher terrain. However; this controller continued to fly us on the 213 heading. There was an abnormally small amount of traffic on the radios; so we were having a hard time understanding why he continued to drive us toward the water and away from our course and lower terrain; but continued on. At this phase; we were in day VMC conditions and had a visual on the terrain. The Controller at one point; told us we had higher terrain coming up and to expedite our climb. We transitioned to Vx; and continued. He then came back on; and announced we had a low altitude alert; and continued our vector toward the higher terrain. He asked us if we were expediting; and we responded in the affirmative. We at this point announced we had the terrain in site; and were VMC. He continued us on course until reach 4;000 feet; at which point he turned us on course. This was a very strange encounter with ATC. Although we met the book minimums for the departure; we were extremely tight as we calculated on the climb gradient. Again; we knew we were VMC; and we met the gradient; and being extremely familiar with this departure; assumed we would be turned well before any upcoming terrain regardless.My concern; was that it seemed almost as though the controller was testing us and seeing if we would deviate from the departure. He did not seem to be trying to work us on course; or turn us away from the terrain. Further; he continued to keep us on course; even after we announced we were giving him our best climb rate. I was concerned about what his intentions were. Perhaps he wanted to allow us to not meet the minimums; or he wanted us to turn without a vector. This was part of my debrief with the student and allowed the discussion of making sure to review all climb gradient data; maintain our own terrain avoidance; and double check vectors. I think in the future; the best course of action will be to announce Vy/Vx to ATC; try to make sure we have larger margins on the climb gradients; and request alternate vectors if it seems like we are getting too close to terrain while on a vector. A pilot reported ATC advised them of a low altitude alert even though they were complying with the SID requirements and ATC took no action to clear them on course or to assist them as expected.
Aircraft: A319
Phase of flight: Descent
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance

Failed to level off at FL310 and caught error at about 30;650. First Officer failed to reset alt to standard after putting in field altimeter. Advised ATC we were about 350 feet low. Cleared us for descent via at that time. A319 Captain describes an altitude deviation caused by the First Officer pulling the baro set knob to set QNH and forgetting to push it back in for QNE. This results in a 350 foot overshoot while descending to FL310.
Aircraft: B767
Phase of flight: Initial Approach
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter

We were established on final a few miles outside of the FAF. All was as it should be. We were stable on the localizer at 170 knots with flaps 15 autopilot on. Winds were 210 at 50 knots; steady. In a split second we went from straight and level to a left hand bank I'm guessing 20 degrees maybe more and the hook came up and we got a momentary stick shaker. As it happened I added power as we rolled wings level. We were about 20 degrees off heading; but the autopilot recovered to intercept the localizer; and we never lost any altitude. Like I said; it happened so quickly and recovered that I saw no need to disconnect the autopilot. We re-intercepted the localizer followed by the glide slope and shot the approach with no other concerns. I'm not sure if the winds were the reason or we hit someone's wake turbulence. I'm guessing it was wake turbulence. [Cause:] not sure - perhaps wake turbulence. The winds were strong but steady. 210 at 50 knots at 3000 ft. Perhaps ATC had us too close; but as I recall my traffic was a 757; 7 miles ahead; maybe it was wake from a plane on the parallel runway. B767 Captain reported encountering probable wake turbulence on approach to MEM.
Aircraft: LARGE TRANSPORT; LOW WING; 2 TURBOJET ENG
Phase of flight: Initial Climb
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Was working LA2 (Local Assist) during a very busy time. FIXIT departures were on; requiring additional in trail spacing; which was adding complexity to the already busy traffic. I had a sequence set for Aircraft Y off of SMO but when I requested release from Malibu sector they were overwhelmed and needed to call me back. Meanwhile the FIXIT departures were canceled and we went back to regular spacing; which changed the sequence again. Instead of giving SMO a '1 min heads up' for departure I told them it would be a while because I was waiting for Malibu to call me back. SMO holds all departures back from the runway due to noise and pollution restrictions at their airport; we give them the 1 min warning so they can taxi the aircraft out to be ready to go. We had one last departure rolling when Malibu called and released Aircraft Y. I released Aircraft Y off of SMO thinking the aircraft would still need to taxi out for departure. But both aircraft ended up airborne at the same time. Just under 4 miles apart. In the future I will verify with SMO where there aircraft is to ensure separation. LAX Tower Local Assist reported releasing an aircraft off SMO. There was a loss of separation between it and a LAX departure.
Aircraft: CESSNA 310/T310C
Phase of flight: Cruise
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence

Departed [a] regional airport and was vectored around areas of thunderstorms and precipitation. Step-climbed up to requested altitude of 8;500 while passing through occasional rain showers. As cloud tops began to build; I requested a climb to 10;500 feet. Upon reaching 10;500 feet; I noticed my airspeed start to decay; indicating [the engine] was not producing enough power. I advanced the throttle to full power which helped the situation. In order to expedite the climb; I also attempted to adjust the props. It was during this time that the airplane lost power to the right engine.I went through my emergency procedures; but opted not to shut down the right engine since I had plenty of altitude to attempt a re-start and look for reasons why this occurred.I told ATC that I had lost my right engine; and initiated a descent.... During the descent; power came back to the right engine.I landed with no further issues.I had a mechanic examine the aircraft the next day; and it was determined that water infiltrated into the fuel tanks. The mechanic suggested replacement of the fuel tank gaskets at the next opportunity.The mechanic also performed some ground run-up tests and downloaded the engine performance data from the JPI-760 which further supported normal engine operations. C310 pilot experienced loss of power in the right engine after climbing through rain showers. Power returned to normal during descent and was subsequently attributed to water contamination of the fuel due to faulty tank gaskets.
Aircraft: COMMERCIAL FIXED WING
Phase of flight: Cruise
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy

After going to the bathroom to clean my teeth; for a split moment; I forgot to put my mask back on. I realized it quickly and put it back. I don't think anybody realized it as most passengers were resting. It was a human mistake and I corrected it right away. It was a moment of forgetfulness. Flight Attendant reported briefly forgetting to put the face mask back on after departing the lavatory.
Aircraft: B737
Phase of flight: Descent
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter

Arrival DYAMD3 briefed and ILS 28R briefed. Verified all altitudes and speed constraints prior to brief. Speed assignment of 250 kts given for traffic. Speed entered into FMC and a discussion of the speed constraints on arrival because the initial two are 280. We opted to leave FMC with input values of 280 instead of changing. Cruise altitude FL360 and given a descent clearance to FL320 and executed by DES NOW prompt in VNAV PATH. A descend via clearance was given and 8000 set in window. Another discussion on setting of airspeed ensued as the FMC would not accept 250 kts over the hard coded 280 kts at LAANE. However; 250 kts was entered at FLOWZ and therefore allowed the FO to enter 250 kts at LAANE. I visually saw the input from the FO on the FMC. During descent on DYAMD3 encountered wake from a heavy which turned the autopilot off. FO re-engaged autopilot shortly afterwards. We were also given the Quiet Bridge routing to RWY 28R. I visually noted the change on the DEP/ARR page that the FO had input; only the approach was changed with transition of ARCHI. I did not check the legs page as I normally do; fatigue; and reverify the route/speed/altitude. NORCAL approach 128.32 queried when we were going to descend from FL250. I visually checked FMC and saw 250/FL250 over FLOWZ and referenced the chart which is FL190 to 14000. Then radar vectors in a box pattern to get to correct altitude. No further problems. We debriefed and could not identify the exact cause of the error to prevent future errors. B737 Captain reported they failed to make a crossing restriction on arrival into SFO. Fatigue and distraction from a wake turbulence encounter were cited as contributing factors.
Aircraft: CESSNA STATIONAIR/TURBO STATIONAIR 6
Phase of flight: Landing
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence

As I was landing; I experienced a strong gust of wind that caused me to momentarily lose control of the aircraft resulting in a hard landing. Moments after touchdown; while still in a nose up 'landing flare' configuration; a strong gust of wind hit my aircraft causing an extreme upward pitch and lift back off the runway surface. As I nosed over to prevent a stall; I over-corrected resulting in a hard nose wheel strike; and an ensuing 'porpoise' bounce. I bounced a second time before fully re-gaining control of the aircraft. Fortunately there were no injuries though I did sustain damage to the nose gear. As I've considered the events leading up to this hard landing; I believe the important lessons to learn are that there can be personal performance degradation after a long day of flying. While the gust of wind struck at an unwelcome phase of flight; the reality is that my imperfect reaction was possibly compounded by a long day of flying around weather and fighting strong headwinds that increased the flight time beyond what was originally planned. In the future; I will stick to 'personal maximum' hours of flying so that I will be fresh even in the last minutes of a flight. The pilot of a Cessna 206 experienced a strong wind gust during landing resulting in a bounce and subsequent nose gear damage.
Aircraft: CRJ200
Phase of flight: Landing
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe

We were on the LOC BC approach; at approximately 12 miles from the airport we had the airport in sight and continued it as a visual approach. Around 5 miles from the airport; the Captain; who was pilot flying; disconnected the autopilot. Soon after disconnecting the autopilot; he stated that the ailerons were extremely stiff and difficult to manipulate. Shortly after that we continued to land. I advised ATC and we landed without incident. CRJ200 First Officer is informed by his Captain; when the autopilot is disconnected during approach; that the ailerons are very stiff. The approach is continued to a normal landing.
Aircraft: B767
Phase of flight: Initial Climb
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe

Received EICAS message 'Gear Disagree' followed by 'Gear Doors' message for the left gear during gear retraction. We ran the 'Gear Disagree' checklist; which had us dropping the gear. We had a normal gear down indication. Flight attendant called us and said the flight attendant at 3L heard a very loud grinding sound during gear retraction. We discussed the situation and decided we may have damage to the gear and or the tires. I was talking to dispatch over ACARS; then dispatch tried to call us on Radio; we had intermittent communication; but were not able to have clear communication because we were so low (5;000 feet). I told them to use Sat Com; but we were unable to get Sat Com established. I called them on my cell phone; and got through to dispatch and [maintenance]. We discussed fuel dumping and a return to ZZZ. I [advised ATC]. We decided; instead of flying box patterns with a lot of vectors; to hold over the ZZZ VOR at 5;000 feet. We informed approach of our intention to dump fuel. We dumped 48;000 LBS to get below max landing weight and to get us as light as possible for landing in case we had damage to the left gear and or tires. After fuel dumping; we made an uneventful landing back at ZZZ; at 348;000 LBS. Once on the runway; I wanted the fire department to check the left main landing gear area for damage. I had the APU on; and we shut down the left engine. The Fire Department informed us of no damage. I then taxied to the gate and shut down. Once at the gate; a mechanic came to the cockpit and told us we sheared off a gear actuator rod at one end. [Report narrative contained no additional information.] B767 flight crew reported a GEAR DISAGREE and GEAR DOORS EICAS message after takeoff; dumped fuel and returned to departure airport. Post flight inspection revealed a sheared left main gear actuator rod.